O
OutinChgoburbs
Guest
As Kirk stated, how can disobedience to the Holy Father be fully Catholic?
- Status
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
The SSPX is in schism and thus cannot be described as “fully Catholic.”
S
srp643
Guest
This is not totally accurate based on what I have read recently. Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos of the Roman Curia conceded in 30 Days magazine that the SSPX clergy and laity are Catholics in an irregular situation, not formal schismatics as such. He said explicitly that the SSPX is NOT a formal schism. If Pope Benedict did not believe this as well, the Cardinal would not have dared to say so. I would agree, however, that the SSPX are not “fully” Catholic.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
This has been something jumped all over by those who wish the facts were as they see them. The Cardinal did not say “you’re not in schism.” He said (to the effect) that problems exist “even if there was no formal schism.” I don’t know if there was a translation problem or not, BUT…even if the Cardinal, on his own accord, walked out onto the loggia of Saint Peter’s and said,“THE SSPX ARE NOT IN SCHISM!!! LET ME REPEAT MYSELF, NOT…IN…SCHISM!!!,” it wouldn’t matter. The SSPX would still be in schism. The Holy Father, Pope John Paul II, of happy memory, said that they WERE in schism (see Ecclesia Dei) and he apparently so believed that they were in schism that he warned the laity from any involvement with them lest they, too, drift into schism. Also, the Bishop of Lincoln EXCOMMUNICATED any one who joined up with them and the Holy See upheld it.
Cardinal Kasper is (apparently, though I’m not certain) under the impression that we aren’t supposed to evangelize Jews, Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos MAY think the SSPX isn’t in schism. It doesn’t matter. One pope trumps an entire suite of cardinals.
Look, the Holy Father seems intent on healing this breach. I hope he can, the break must surely grieve Our Lord. One cannot rewrite history, however.
S
srp643
Guest
The Cardinal said what he said my friend. He has JPII’s documents just like we do. We’ll agree to disagree.
T
thistle
Guest
No rational person can really believe SSPX are not in schism.
Ecclesia Dei by John Paul II made it perfectly clear they are in schism so it doesn’t matter what a lone Cardinal says.
S
srp643
Guest
Then I guess Cardinal Hoyos is irrational in your mind. He’s worked for many years on this issue and there is no way he would be careless with his words. He would not be making these statements about such an important issue without the Pope’s endorsement. Watch and see my friend.
T
thistle
Guest
In case you didn’t see the earlier post I repeat it here:
The following is an extract from Ecclesia Dei by John Paul II.
c) In the present circumstances I wish especially to make an appeal both solemn and heartfelt, paternal and fraternal, to all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, that they may fulfil the grave duty of remaining united to the Vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church, and of ceasing their support in any way for that movement. Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church’s law.
That seems pretty clear and unambiguous to me!
S
srp643
Guest
Acknowledged but it doesn’t explain Cardinal Hoyos’ statements. If it was another cardinal i would not give his statements as much weight but he’s the guy directly responsible for reconciliation with the SSPX on behalf of our Pope. He cannot afford to be careless. If i can find the interview i’ll post the link.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
We’ve seen the interview, but do post it. He doesn’t say they aren’t in schism. He says,“Blah, blah, blah, even if no schism existed” or something to that effect. He doesn’t say,“no schism exists.”
Good to know that the old covenant with the Jews is entirely salvific and that we don’t have to evanglize them. One cardinal (the one in charge of ecumenical relations), who’s “directly responsible” and “cannot afford to be careless” apparently says so.
The Pope is the Supreme Legislator. Canon law means what he says it means (canon law even says that canon law means what the pope says it means). The pope didn’t excommunicate the Archbishop or the four bishops he consecrated, he merely confirmed that their disobedience brought them into a state of schism and that they had excommunicated themselves. If it had been a grey area in his mind, then he would probably have kept silence.
S
srp643
Guest
This is your interpretation but not how others have interpreted the Cardinal’s words. So I guess we’ll just have to wait and get his clarification. You may be surprised, maybe not. It’s in the hands of the Holy Spirit. In any event, let’s pray for the SSPX as well-intentioned Christians. Their influence is growing widely.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
Verify, please, that their influence is growing widely. It isn’t in my diocese, they pull about 75 people to their High Mass. Last count I heard, they had about a million around the world, not much a percentage of the near billion Catholic population worldwide, even if you discount the CINOs.
Also, I believe I explained (in law, not opinion, in fact, not opinion) that EVEN IF the Cardinal doesn’t believe that a schism exists, it doesn’t matter. The Pope said one did.
In reason, if no schism exists, then why is the Pope trying to reconcile them? If no rupture exists, why is there a need for reconciliation? If no schism exists, then why are SSPX masses illicit (not invalid, but illicit)? If no schism exists, then why don’t the SSPX possess the faculties to offer vaild, non-emergency absolution? If no schism exists, then why could the Bishop of Lincoln, Nebraska, excommunicate the adherents in his diocese with impunity, indeed, with the decision upheld by the Holy See?
To say that no schism exists, in the face of all of that, is like insisting that Santa Claus is alive and well at the North Pole.
Yes, I’d be happy to pray for them…to return to the Truth.
S
srp643
Guest
Nice try, you’re mistaken. Reconciliation can involve “irregular” Catholics as well. I’ve tried to find the article but haven’t had any luck. Will keep looking. If you’d be happy to pray for them, then do it.
H
Ham1
Guest
The article is here:
30giorni.it/us/articolo_stampa.asp?id=9360
It is worth noting that Cardinal Hoyos says:
“Unfortunately Monsignor Lefebvre went ahead with the consecration and hence the situation of separation came about, even if it was not a formal schism.”
Saying “even if it was not a formal schism” does not mean it was not. He is making the point that even if it is not a formal schism, the priests and bishops of SSPX are still AT THE VERY LEAST suspended and in need of reconciliation with the Church. This is much more of a rhetorical device than a statement that there is no formal schism.
Ultimately, the ruling document here is Ecclesia Dei and that is quite clear in it’s meaning.
N
NeelyAnn
Guest
Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos is the President of Ecclesia Dei. He is the one the Pope has put in charge of rectifying the situation with the SSPX. I think he knows exactly what he is saying and what he means, and he seems to be doing it with the Pope’s permission.
Declaration of Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos on television (TV Channel 5 in Italy) on November 13, 2005.
Commentator: The old Mass in Latin is attractive, but it is also a source of quarrels. Today, in order to celebrate it publicly, the permission of the local bishop is required, but for months rumor has been having it that Benedict XVI could decide to liberalize it. This persistent rumor, however, finds no echo in the declarations of Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos, Head of the Congregation for the clergy, and major artisan of the dialogue with the Traditionalist groups, and first of all with the SSPX which gathers the faithful of Archbishop Lefebvre.
Cardinal Castrillon: This is the habitual rule. It is the local bishop who is responsible. It is up to the bishop to judge whether or not this is good for his diocese at a given time and for pastoral reasons which he knows and for which he will have to answer to the pope, but even more to Jesus, to God.
Commentator: So, it is a matter of re-affirming episcopal authority, but at the same time an appeal to their conscience in order to avoid useless rigidity and contribute to the long process of a rapprochement with the disciples of Archbishop Lefebvre, as already undertaken under the pontificate of John-Paul II who, in 1988, excommunicated the French Archbishop for performing illicitly 4 episcopal consecrations. This dialogue seems to have taken a new start with the meeting in Castel Gandolfo between Benedict XVI and the Superior of the SSPX Bishop Fellay, last summer.
**Cardinal Castrillon: We are not confronted to a heresy. It cannot be said in correct, exact, and precise terms that there is a schism. There is a schismatic attitude in the fact of consecrating bishops without pontifical mandate. They are within the Church. There is only the fact that a full, more perfect communion is lacking – as was stated during the meeting with Bishop Fellay – a fuller communion, because communion does exist. **
cardinalrating.com/cardinal_17__article_2883.htm
Declaration of Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos on television (TV Channel 5 in Italy) on November 13, 2005.
Commentator: The old Mass in Latin is attractive, but it is also a source of quarrels. Today, in order to celebrate it publicly, the permission of the local bishop is required, but for months rumor has been having it that Benedict XVI could decide to liberalize it. This persistent rumor, however, finds no echo in the declarations of Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos, Head of the Congregation for the clergy, and major artisan of the dialogue with the Traditionalist groups, and first of all with the SSPX which gathers the faithful of Archbishop Lefebvre.
Cardinal Castrillon: This is the habitual rule. It is the local bishop who is responsible. It is up to the bishop to judge whether or not this is good for his diocese at a given time and for pastoral reasons which he knows and for which he will have to answer to the pope, but even more to Jesus, to God.
Commentator: So, it is a matter of re-affirming episcopal authority, but at the same time an appeal to their conscience in order to avoid useless rigidity and contribute to the long process of a rapprochement with the disciples of Archbishop Lefebvre, as already undertaken under the pontificate of John-Paul II who, in 1988, excommunicated the French Archbishop for performing illicitly 4 episcopal consecrations. This dialogue seems to have taken a new start with the meeting in Castel Gandolfo between Benedict XVI and the Superior of the SSPX Bishop Fellay, last summer.
**Cardinal Castrillon: We are not confronted to a heresy. It cannot be said in correct, exact, and precise terms that there is a schism. There is a schismatic attitude in the fact of consecrating bishops without pontifical mandate. They are within the Church. There is only the fact that a full, more perfect communion is lacking – as was stated during the meeting with Bishop Fellay – a fuller communion, because communion does exist. **
cardinalrating.com/cardinal_17__article_2883.htm
M
Marilena
Guest
Good article!
A
arch_angelorum
Guest
JKirkLVNV said:
No disobeyeing the Roman Pope is never praisworthy (unless the pope is suggesting something completely wrong/heretical but I won’t get into all that).
And going against centuries of Holy Tradition somehow is very Catholic because what? Because the Pope in the 1960’s suddenly decided to part with it?
Even if Vat II’s intent was completely innocent and had great intentions for the church, I guess it wasn’t clear enough on what it’s intentions were or else this mess with the SSPX wouldn’t be as iti s today. Perhaps a Vatican III needs to happen in order to clear the air of what the past council really meant-liturgically and ecumenically.
Again, no “disparaging” is meant for the Novus Ordo anything: Mass, etc.
N
NeelyAnn
Guest
Pope Benedict said exactly the same thing (about the situation with the SSPX, not VIII) in a speech he gave many years ago as Cardinal Ratzinger. I belieive it was his speech to the Bishops Conference to the Bishops of Chile.
He has also been very vocal lately about the false interpretation of the Council documents. This from his speech to the Curia on Dec. 22, 2005:
**The argument, we repeat, is striking: a change in the constitution of the Church by the council is impossible, firstly because the Fathers did not have any such mandate; secondly, because no one gave it to them; thirdly, because no one could have given it to them. In short, in the Church, the Revolution (even a “conciliar” one) is illicit in principle and without normative value. ** (the address of Pope Benedict XVI to the Curia, December 22, 2005)
N
NeelyAnn
Guest
Using this reasoning, it could also be said that when the Holy Father said that the SSPX can no longer claim a state of necessity because he is trying to correct the problems, that he was acknowledging that a state of necessity existed prior to his pontificacy.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
But a POPE can change the constitution of the Church or permit deviations from it in disicipline. Any changes to the Mass that have the permission of the pope are valid and licit (such as the use of the vernacular, the reception of communion in the hand, etc.). In your quotation, the Holy Father isn’t repudiating the Council, the Pauline Rite, etc., he’s cautioning against the so-called “Spirit of Vatican II.”
- Status